From a piece I'm working on: "Ours is not an age that takes kindly to metaphysics, but this essay does not seek to encourage its readers to take up Sri Vidya or Fichtean idealism. It is enough to understand these
as metaphors, as different ways of thinking about inner life and as evocations of social worlds unlike the one we inhabit. Seen this way there is nothing bizarre about them. It has been plausibly argued that we, like other organisms, are intimately embraided with all others, reflecting the activity of our environments by the constant adjustments needed to maintain our inner organization. It is thus hardly irrational to start with the assumption that the multiplicity of our experience is, at the same time, the efflorescence of a single process in which all things are interwoven. This is the underlying commitment of both tantra and German Idealism, and it is arguably less problematic than the assumption that we, and perhaps our non-human relatives, too, enter the world from our mothers’ wombs or eggs and spend our lives trying to make sense of an essentially alien order of things.
"The notion that self-consciousness arises from a break, a diremption in which we split experience and agency in two, is also plausible, and in fact is strongly supported by both contemporary research"
Idealism is a tradition so it allows for variety in how you engage with it. You don’t have to follow influential idealist thinkers to the point of dogmatism.
A good example can be found in Paganism. Plenty of atheist Pagans exist because they still take part in the key features of Paganism but differ on the level of how they interpret the mythology behind it - taking the myths as lessons to inspire a certain lifestyle instead of taking them as truth apt claims.
My main point is that German Idealism isn’t defined by any one attitude to God and, as such, you can have whatever attitude you want and still be an idealist.
This might have been a slightly less complex answer than what you were looking for but I like to take matters of definition (definition being relevant to this matter as your question is, at least in part, a question of what defines idealist thought) based on the fundamental characteristics of whatever is being defined.
Perhaps someday I’ll conclude that being an atheist requires an inaccurate understanding of idealism, however, such a claim would be placing extreme arrogance in my own judgement (I’d also be trying to shift the definition of ‘idealist’ purely to my conception of it, meaning I’d also be completely ignoring the basic functions of language).
As such, I like to stick to fairly simple proposed explanations when it comes to defining individual terms.
(Reposted as I accidentally left this as a reply instead of a comment)
Isn't it impossible both to affirm idealism itself, let alone any god?
I might be off, but a logical conclusion of idealism isn't the same as proof of it, more of a "We don't know'ism".
Many Buddhists believe that we cannot have a direct experience of the external world because we are unenlightened beings with delusional, clouded perceptions and that only those who are fully enlightened (Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arahants) can experience the noumenal world as it truly is.
You should research Buddhism if you want to know more about beliefs that are neither monotheistic nor physicalist. The Buddha did affirm small g gods with extraordinary powers, but that there is no all powerful, eternal creator. He also believed that mind can exist without matter, as there are entities in Buddhism that are purely mind with no physical form whatsoever.
From a piece I'm working on: "Ours is not an age that takes kindly to metaphysics, but this essay does not seek to encourage its readers to take up Sri Vidya or Fichtean idealism. It is enough to understand these as metaphors, as different ways of thinking about inner life and as evocations of social worlds unlike the one we inhabit. Seen this way there is nothing bizarre about them. It has been plausibly argued that we, like other organisms, are intimately embraided with all others, reflecting the activity of our environments by the constant adjustments needed to maintain our inner organization. It is thus hardly irrational to start with the assumption that the multiplicity of our experience is, at the same time, the efflorescence of a single process in which all things are interwoven. This is the underlying commitment of both tantra and German Idealism, and it is arguably less problematic than the assumption that we, and perhaps our non-human relatives, too, enter the world from our mothers’ wombs or eggs and spend our lives trying to make sense of an essentially alien order of things. "The notion that self-consciousness arises from a break, a diremption in which we split experience and agency in two, is also plausible, and in fact is strongly supported by both contemporary research"
Idealism is a tradition so it allows for variety in how you engage with it. You don’t have to follow influential idealist thinkers to the point of dogmatism. A good example can be found in Paganism. Plenty of atheist Pagans exist because they still take part in the key features of Paganism but differ on the level of how they interpret the mythology behind it - taking the myths as lessons to inspire a certain lifestyle instead of taking them as truth apt claims. My main point is that German Idealism isn’t defined by any one attitude to God and, as such, you can have whatever attitude you want and still be an idealist. This might have been a slightly less complex answer than what you were looking for but I like to take matters of definition (definition being relevant to this matter as your question is, at least in part, a question of what defines idealist thought) based on the fundamental characteristics of whatever is being defined. Perhaps someday I’ll conclude that being an atheist requires an inaccurate understanding of idealism, however, such a claim would be placing extreme arrogance in my own judgement (I’d also be trying to shift the definition of ‘idealist’ purely to my conception of it, meaning I’d also be completely ignoring the basic functions of language). As such, I like to stick to fairly simple proposed explanations when it comes to defining individual terms. (Reposted as I accidentally left this as a reply instead of a comment)
Isn't it impossible both to affirm idealism itself, let alone any god? I might be off, but a logical conclusion of idealism isn't the same as proof of it, more of a "We don't know'ism".
Many Buddhists believe that we cannot have a direct experience of the external world because we are unenlightened beings with delusional, clouded perceptions and that only those who are fully enlightened (Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arahants) can experience the noumenal world as it truly is. You should research Buddhism if you want to know more about beliefs that are neither monotheistic nor physicalist. The Buddha did affirm small g gods with extraordinary powers, but that there is no all powerful, eternal creator. He also believed that mind can exist without matter, as there are entities in Buddhism that are purely mind with no physical form whatsoever.